Endometrial microstimulation effects on endometrial receptivity assessed by transvaginal color Doppler sonography

Abstract

Objective This study investigated the effect of endometrial microstimulation (EM) on endometrial receptivity using transvaginal color Doppler sonography (TVCDS). Method Women of childbearing age who were preparing to conceive (n = 90) were randomly divided into the EM group (n = 30), who were examined by EM on days 3–5 of the menstrual cycle, and the control group (n = 60). TVCDS was conducted during the implantation window phase, and endometrial thickness, endometrial pattern, endometrial movement, blood flow type, and uterine and spiral arterial hemodynamic parameter measurements were made. The groups were compared to identify differences. Results Endometrial thickness (0.97 ± 0.18 cm and 0.95 ± 0.17 cm), endometrial movement (type 1: 46.7% and 51.7%; type 2: 30.0% and 28.3%; type 3: 6.7% and 5.0%; type 5: 16.7% and 15.0%), and hemodynamic parameters of the uterine (pulsatility index [PI]: 2.46 ± 0.50 and 2.41 ± 0.48; resistance index [RI]: 0.85 ± 0.05 and 0.84 ± 0.05) and spiral (PI: 1.11 ± 0.32 and 1.19 ± 0.33; RI: 0.48 ± 0.11 and 0.51 ± 0.08) arteries did not differ significantly between groups (P > 0.05). However, the endometrial pattern (a trilaminar pattern: 80.0% and 58.3%; P = 0.041) and blood flow type (type I: 16.7% and 43.3%; type II: 63.3% and 40.0%; type III 20.0% and 16.7%; P = 0.038) differed significantly between groups. Conclusion Endometrial microstimulation did not alter endometrial pathological staging, endometrial thickness, or movement, nor did it affect uterine and spiral arterial blood flow parameters. However, it may be able to abrade abnormal endometrial tissue, optimizing the endometrial pattern. Endometrial microstimulation may support local spiral artery regeneration and increase endometrial blood supply in new cycles.

Ultrasound‑assessed endometrial receptivity measures for the prediction of in vitro fertilization‑embryo transfer clinical pregnancy outcomes: A meta‑analysis and systematic review

“…Clinically, endometrial receptivity is usually evaluated from endometrial morphology, ultrasound imaging, biochemistry, and other aspects ( 11 ). Among them, transvaginal ultrasound assessment of endometrial receptivity is non-invasive and highly repeatable and thus has been widely used in clinical practice ( 12 ). However, due to the use of ultrasound to measure the relevant indicators of endometrial receptivity, it is affected to a certain extent by the subjective factors of the examiner and the objective factors that differ between different ultrasound machines and equipment ( 13 ).…”